Delhi District Court
Manish Garg vs Swati Aggarwal on 17 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT010002062026
Criminal Revision No. 13/2026
Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. MANISH GARG
S/O LATE SH. RAM KRISHAN GARG
R/o G-121, GROUND FIOOR,
GALI NO. 24, RAJA PURI,
UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI.
....Revisionist/Petitioner
VERSUS
SWATI AGGARWAL
D/O LATE SH. VIPIN AGGARWAL
R/O PLOT NO. 10, C-2, B-1 BLOCK, FRIENDS
APARTMENT, SANT NAGAR, BURARI
NEW DELHI-110084
....Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17.01.2026
CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.1 of 14
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI JAIN
SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.01.17
17:03:37
+0530
JUDGMENT
Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition under Section 438 BNSS moved on behalf of revisionist against the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court-03), District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case titled as Swati Aggarwal Vs. Manish Garg.
1. It is averred that respondent has filed petition under Domestic Violence Act against the revisionist herein in September, 2022 wherein interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.18,000/- per month was awarded by the trial court in favour of the respondent. However, the same was reduced to Rs.13,000/- per month by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is further averred that respondent filed the execution petition bearing No. 112/2024 claiming dues of maintenance from 19.09.2022 to 26.05.2024 to the tune of Rs. 3,60,000/- @ Rs. 18,000/- per month.
2. It is further averred that till date, payment of Rs.1,50,000/- has been made by the petitioner to the respondent, out of the total dues of Rs.2,60,000/- @ Rs. 13,000/- per month. It is further averred that at present, an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- is unpaid and substantial payment has already been made. It is further averred that despite substantial payment being made by the petitioner CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.2 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.01.17 17:04:06 +0530 herein, the trial Court has issued warrant of arrest qua petitioner vide impugned order dated 03.12.2025. It is further submitted that petitioner/revisionist has assailed the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by Ld. Trial Court whereby warrant of arrest has been issued qua petitioner on the following grounds:
GROUNDS a. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the facts of the case as well as law of land and the same has been passed in the routine and mechanical manner without applying the judicious mind and also without going through the facts and circumstances of the case.
b. It is further averred that trial court has calculated the dues @ Rs.18,000/- per month instead of Rs.13,000/- per month and misinterpreted the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
c. It is further averred that trial court has issued warrant against revisionist despite the fact that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- out of total dues of Rs.2,60,000/- has already been paid.
d. It is further averred that order of maintenance under DV Act is not to be executed in this manner and at least, showcause notice be issued to the revisionist so as to know that why he is not clearing arrears.
CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.3 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.01.17
17:04:10
+0530
e. It is further averred that trial Court verbally
asked/directed JD to make payment of Rs.40,000/- on next date of hearing and wrongly recorded in ordersheet dated 11.09.2025 that JD undertakes to make payment of at least Rs.40,000/- on next date of hearing to DH.
f. It is further averred that no such undertaking had been given by the JD and in fact, JD submitted that he would not be in position to make payment of aforesaid amount to the DH.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not filed any other petition to challenge the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 either before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India.
4. It is thus prayed that order dated 03.12.2025 be set aside.
5. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has relied upon following judgments:
i.Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324 ii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Karan Arora Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. passed on 03.07.2023 in Crl. M.C. 3054/2022 iii. Mohiet Anand Vs. Parul Anand MAT. APP.(FC) iv. Jolly George Verghese and Anr. Vs. CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.4 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:13 +0530 the Bank of Cochin
6. Respondent chose not to file reply but directly addressed arguments. Respondents vehemently opposed the present revision petition and submitted that it is filed merely to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that impugned order was rightly passed by the Trial court after considering facts and circumstances of the case and material on record. It is further submitted that the respondent was subjected to relentless harassment and revisionist admittedly failed to pay the balance amount of dues on account of interim maintenance to the respondent herein despite several opportunities being granted for the same. It is further submitted that trial Court was forced to take coercive measures against revisionist in order to secure the payment of interim maintenance in compliance of order passed by Hon'ble High Court. It is further submitted that trial court has not issued the warrant of arrest directly but only after giving several opportunities to the revisionist to make the payment.
7. It is further submitted that citations relied upon by Ld. counsel for the revisionist are not applicable to the case in hand as the facts and circumstances of said cases are different from the present case.
8. It is further submitted that scope of interference in revision petition is narrow and limited only for the purpose of considering correctness, legality or propriety CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.5 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:18 +0530 of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is further averred that the revisional court does not dwell at length upon the facts of the case.
9. It is prayed that the revision petition filed by the revisionist be dismissed with cost.
10. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record and relied upon citations carefully.
11. Revisionist has filed the present revision petition against impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by Ld. Trial court, whereby trial court issued warrant of arrest against JD.
12. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the revisionist that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and circumstances of the case in hand as well as material on record and passed the impugned order in mechanical manner without appreciating the material on record.
13. Before proceedings further, it is necessary to go through the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by Ld. Trial court which is reproduced as under:-
"The undersigned is also holding Evening Court Traffic Challan (ECTC) No. 2 from 05:00 PM to 07:00 PM.
Matters are being taken up through Hybrid Mode. The undersigned is also working as Link of Ms. Shaina Goyal, Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-01, THC, Delhi CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.6 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.01.17 17:04:23 +0530 8 EX CRL / 112/2024 SWATI AGGARWAL VS. MANISH GARG /0 (Burari) 03.12.2025 Present: Sh. Ravi Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the DH along with DH.
Sh. Shubham Sharma, Ld. proxy counsel for the JD.
It is stated by the counsel for the DH that no payment has been made post last date of hearing.
Passover is sought by proxy counsel for JD till 10.30 am.
Allowed.
Be awaited till 10.30 am.
(Pooja Yadav) JMFC (Mahila Court) - 03 Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 03.12.2025 Present : Sh. Ravi Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the DH along with DH.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Ld. counsel for the JD. JD is absent.
An amount of Rs. 20,000/- paid by the JD to the DH in between the dates of hearing. The same has been verified by the DH.
Calculation sheet on behalf of JD filed. Taken on record.
Copy be supplied.
Ld. counsel for JD submits that the JD is not present today as he has gone to his native place to make arrangements for money to be paid to the DH and thus not able today.
Ld. counsel for the JD has further relied upon judgment titled as Mohit Anand Vs. Parul Anand, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/22 and CM APPL.64721/2022 of CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.7 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:27 +0530 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to submit that no warrants of arrest can be issued against JD without giving him any show cause notice as the procedure for recovery of maintenance is to be followed as per the provisions of CPC, in particular sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r/w Order XXI.
Heard. Case law perused.
The said case law is not applicable in the present case as the same is in the context of an appeal against an order of Ld. Family Court qua maintenance awarded under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act. Furthermore, the reliance is misplaced as in Anish Pramod Patel vs. Kiran Jyot Maini [2023 SCC OnLine Del 7605], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the following:
"Thus, the scheme of PWDV Act leave no scope of doubt that the non-compliance of monetary relief including order granting maintenance/interim maintenance has to be dealt with as per provisions of Section 20(6) of PWDV Act and further as per provisions of Cr.P.C. As regards what could be the procedure under Cr.P.C. to enforce the orders of maintenance, reference can be made to Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 ('PWDV Rules') wherein Rule 6(5) provides that for the enforcement of orders passed on application under Section 12 of PWDV Act the procedure laid down under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed."
In view thereof, it is clear that the execution of maintenance order is enforced as per Section 128 Cr.P.C and since arrears of more than Rs. 2,30,000/- is outstanding and on last to last date of hearing, the JD had given undertaking to make payment of at least Rs. 40,000/- and despite lapse of almost three months only Rs. 20,000/- has been paid, it appears that the JD is deliberately not making payment and avoiding his appearance, thus, issue warrants of arrest against JD on filing of PF through SHO concerned returnable for 19.01.2026.
(Pooja Yadav) JMFC (Mahila Court) - 03 CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.8 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:31 +0530 Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 03.12.2025"
14. Perusal of TCR and impugned order reveals that trial court has rightly passed the impugned order after perusing the record and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Furthermore, trial Court has also assigned detailed reasons for issuing warrant of arrest against JD which again gives an inference that impugned order was not passed in mechanical manner without going through the judicial record.
15. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the revisionist that trial court has calculated the dues @ Rs.18,000/- per month instead of Rs.13,000/- per month and misinterpreted the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. However, it is pertinent to note that perusal of the TCR reveals that trial court has categorically noted in order dated 11.09.2025 about the directions passed by Hon'ble High Court in order dated 23.09.2024 and also took note of the fact that neither the arrears have been cleared by the revisionist nor monthly payment is being made @ Rs.13,000/- per month and that is why, report has been called from the Nazir regarding the arrears calculated @ Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order dated 03.12.2025 has been passed by the trial court by misinterpreting the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No.9 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:35 +0530
16. It is further argued by Ld. counsel for the revisionist that trial court has issued warrant against the revisionist in violation of law has petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- out of total dues of Rs.2,60,000/-. This admission on behalf of revisionist clearly reflects that an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- is still unpaid despite several opportunities being granted to the petitioner herein to pay the same to the respondent and that is why, trial court was constrained to take recourse to coercive measures.
17. It is further argued by Ld. counsel for the revisionist that trial court instead of issuing warrant of arrest should have issued show cause notice to the revisionist/JD seeking explanation as to why he is not clearing the arrears. It is noted that perusal of the TCR reveals that several opportunities have been given to the revisionist by the Trial Court and only thereafter, coercive steps were issued against him in order to secure the payment.
18. It is further argued by by Ld. counsel for the revisionist that trial court has wrongly recorded in ordersheet dated 11.09.2025 that JD undertakes to make payment of at least Rs.40,000/- on next date of hearing to the DH. It is noted that there is a sanctity attached to the judicial proceeding and therefore, this argument cannot be relied upon.
CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No. 10 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.01.17 17:04:38 +0530
19. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering that trial court has passed detailed reasoned order in accordance with law after considering all the citations filed on behalf of revisionist herein, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order in revisional jurisdiction.
20. Coming now to the case law, while discussing the power of the revisionist court, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 107, it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:
"3. ...The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, 2000 CriLJ 746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges."
CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No. 11 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.01.17 17:04:42 +0530
21. Also, the present court have to keep in mind that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
22. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 wherein it has been observed as under :
"14.....Unless the order passed by the CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No. 12 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:46 +0530 Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
23. Applying the aforesaid principle of law to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law as discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 03.12.2025 as per law. Accordingly, no material brought on record to challenge correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 which is sine qua non for invoking revisional jurisdiction. It cannot be said at this stage that conclusion arrived by the Ld. Trial Court is unreasonable and unjustified, calling for interference CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No. 13 of 14 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:50 +0530 by the present Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any infirmity or flaw in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
24. Accordingly, Revision Petition alongwith application seeking stay is disposed off as dismissed.
25. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the merits of the case. Trial Court record be sent back along with the copy of this order.
26. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Copy of order be given dasti to the revisionist.
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.01.17 17:04:54 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain) th on 17 day of January, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, THC, Delhi CR No.13/2026 Manish Garg Vs. Swati Aggarwal Page No. 14 of 14